free-range politics, organic community

Let Me Reiterate

The day this site becomes a unilateral echo chamber for any political faction is the day this site gets closed down. Period.

What is so hard to understand about c99p being nonpartisan. It is open to everyone, as long as they are civil to other members. Become uncivil and you'll be called out. Plain and simple. I'll repeat that, become uncivil and you will be called out. Is that too much to ask?

There are no winners or losers on this board.

I'm going to go out to my garden, dig a deep hole and bury myself up to my neck.

But what do I know. And it's hard to find the one video where he actually played it back again. Very, very old stuff. And the real one, I believe.

I guess I have mixed up things. Again. My bad.

up

13 users have voted.

—

They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore

Beginning to see ego wars coming on here. Ain't pretty. Let others have their say, no need to criticize. I have to be careful now, as to what I post. Not expecting to get bruised by the elitist thinkers here. But it happens. So I toughen up. This is the same state that chased me away from Dkos. Not sure how many funkin more ego centrists I have to be assailed with before it's adios, amigos. Why is it so hard to relate kindness instead of these fukyou replies? Swim in your own shit, please do not share it with me. Got enough of my own. Really trying to create a positive working relationship with the bloggers here. Getting tougher. Each try. What makes y'all so funkin smart that what someone thinks, shares and tries to build into a community has to be a threat to your 'opinion'?

The day this site becomes a unilateral echo chamber for any political faction is the day this site gets closed down. Period.

As it should be and will be if I have anything to do with it!

What is so hard to understand about c99p being nonpartisan. It is open to everyone, as long as they are civil to other members. Become uncivil and you'll be called out. Plain and simple. I'll repeat that, become uncivil and you will be called out. Is that too much to ask?

There are no winners or losers on this board.

Slightly off in one tiny respect: Keep your discussions civil and respectful, and everybody wins, from the Blog itself on down. Make this into an echo chamber, and we all lose completely, again, from the Blog itself on down. The continuously declining popularity of both RedState and Daily Kos is sufficient evidence of that fact. Meanwhile, we keep picking up new readers and registered users, so you've got to be doing something right, my gentle Conqueroo!

up

24 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

@gjohnsit
ain't you, or your ideas. No threats from you, just wisdom, opinions and awareness of issues. That is, I think, what makes this place noticeably better. Comments ? Oh, I donna know, peanuts in the gallery sometimes.

during one of those periods when my computer/connection decided to take time off, as I'd missed it.

But I agree with almost every one of the comments on there. And please do not self-silence! Not only is your voice and information essential and needed, but we are likely to be all silenced soon enough, as it is.

I feel like I know the regular posters here. Seems to me we're friends, but maybe something went over my head. I must admit I felt a little testiness over the voting issue. But to be honest, I feel like the discussion added depth to my thoughts on the subject.

As to being rude. We all need to police ourselves and one another. I hope I've given no offense to any of you. Here's wishing JtC and all c99er peace of mind.

They tried to bury us...but they didn't know we were seeds. Let's flower and produce great ideas (and be kind in the process).

up

37 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

I feel like I know the regular posters here. Seems to me we're friends, but maybe something went over my head. I must admit I felt a little testiness over the voting issue. But to be honest, I feel like the discussion added depth to my thoughts on the subject.

As to being rude. We all need to police ourselves and one another. I hope I've given no offense to any of you. Here's wishing JtC and all c99er peace of mind.

They tried to bury us...but they didn't know we were seeds. Let's flower and produce great ideas (and be kind in the process).

up

29 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

I want to apologize to you for whatever part I have had in bringing you to this point of despair and anger. That was never my intention, which I hope you know. However, it does appear that I’ve misunderstood the ground rules, despite two years of trying to find a place here where I feel I fit. I also apologize for not always being civil. I’m human, I get angry, I sometimes feel that things are important which probably are not. At least, not here and now.

This is your place, you built it and keep it alive. In no way will I be a party to you closing it down. My hope and reason for resurfacing here a while ago was not hidden. I said openly what it was at the time. It was to take a stand on an issue that I felt mattered, which was that it felt very much like one particular position or point of view, which is shared by a sizeable majority here now, was squeezing out other points of view. That’s not meant as a character attrack or disrespectful towards anyone, it’s just what I’ve seen happening over the last months. And this was as a complete lurker, as I’d backed off from writing here previously because certain things matter to me too much. I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

So yeah, whatever, it’s pretty clear I was way off in thinking that it was a good idea or to think that was going to help. I get it now, what you want. I think. I hope!

I don’t invest my time and energy, or money, in any enterprise that isn’t worth such support. Whatever criticisms I’ve made, it’s been in the spirit of trying to make the overall community better. Because I believe this place does matter. Otherwise I seriously would never have been interested or thought to bother to invest emotionally in this place. So again I’m sorry for being overzealous.

If you can spare 4 and a half more minutes, I wish you would watch this short clip of the ever-entertaining and thought-provoking Terence McKenna. (Yes I know he also said many not-so-brilliant things too; no one is always right about everything.

In this clip he discusses something very relevant to this, in that he brilliantly explains how i think and feel, philosophically, as a basic approach to life. It’s what I operate from. Which is why I think I finally get the disconnect, and why what I believe in, doesn’t fit in. But I invite you to hear what he says. What do you think? Is this idea all wet? I wish I could do a transcript but I can’t right now, so I have to ask you to listen instead but obviously only if you want to. I’m sure I’ve cost you too much time already. Sorry again about that.

on a discussion site for multiple points of view? Only that dreaded echo chamber is limited to one...

... It was to take a stand on an issue that I felt mattered, which was that it felt very much like one particular position or point of view, which is shared by a sizeable majority here now, was squeezing out other points of view. ...

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

Seems to me that the most fruitful problem-solving focus might not be placed on the fact that everyone onsite doesn't all always agree on everything and that different people support different approaches, but perhaps better directed by their various proponents toward increasing the visibility of these various approaches and the reasoning behind them in a positive action?

up

11 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

I usually feel it’s an obligation to try to engage and respond to people who comment to me. But on the other hand, you’ve mischaracterized and/or completely misunderstood my point entirely, and it would be argumentative of me to reply to set you straight. So I’m going to leave it alone.

on a discussion site for multiple points of view? Only that dreaded echo chamber is limited to one...

... It was to take a stand on an issue that I felt mattered, which was that it felt very much like one particular position or point of view, which is shared by a sizeable majority here now, was squeezing out other points of view. ...

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

Seems to me that the most fruitful problem-solving focus might not be placed on the fact that everyone onsite doesn't all always agree on everything and that different people support different approaches, but perhaps better directed by their various proponents toward increasing the visibility of these various approaches and the reasoning behind them in a positive action?

I usually feel it’s an obligation to try to engage and respond to people who comment to me. But on the other hand, you’ve mischaracterized and/or completely misunderstood my point entirely, and it would be argumentative of me to reply to set you straight. So I’m going to leave it alone.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

It’s late. I do not want to be argumentative. But I never said the problem was that not everyone agrees on everything or that people have different approaches. I would direct you to where I said this.

I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

My point is I miss so many of the people who wrote here when I arrived two years ago. Hecate. Shaz and Shar. Jay Ray. Oh man, I can’t think of everyone right now - but no one can replace them. I certainly can’t! Nor would I ever try. I’m sad I came here too late. Did I always agree with them? Hell no. But it was interesting and different from the daily kos discussion of politics, democrats, etc. So refreshing! OMG, Shangi La! That’s what I miss. I can’t fix that.

But, you know this is all really personal and I doubt anyone wants to hear it. I wanted to say I’m sorry to JtC and try to let him know where I’m coming from. That’s it. So good night.

You make claims about a majority, lost writers, and people leaving out of pique that are not in evidence to me. The only people who have left in pique are folks with opinions that were “attacked” or those that attacked them and got called out.

It’s late. I do not want to be argumentative. But I never said the problem was that not everyone agrees on everything or that people have different approaches. I would direct you to where I said this.

I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

My point is I miss so many of the people who wrote here when I arrived two years ago. Hecate. Shaz and Shar. Jay Ray. Oh man, I can’t think of everyone right now - but no one can replace them. I certainly can’t! Nor would I ever try. I’m sad I came here too late. Did I always agree with them? Hell no. But it was interesting and different from the daily kos discussion of politics, democrats, etc. So refreshing! OMG, Shangi La! That’s what I miss. I can’t fix that.

But, you know this is all really personal and I doubt anyone wants to hear it. I wanted to say I’m sorry to JtC and try to let him know where I’m coming from. That’s it. So good night.

@dkmich
There's certainly a number of strong voices who don't post anymore. But I think that has to do with how depressing politics has become, not because of a peer-pressuring majority on the site.

I never felt anything even approaching peer pressure until yesterday, which is why it was such a jolt. It seemed to come out of nowhere. That said, I tend to assume good faith on the part of C99ers, and I think most people had no intention of making me feel that way. I certainly know there's no top-down conspiracy on the part of admins and mods to protect and encourage roving gangs of bullies, which there was on the Great Orange Satan.

You make claims about a majority, lost writers, and people leaving out of pique that are not in evidence to me. The only people who have left in pique are folks with opinions that were “attacked” or those that attacked them and got called out.

up

14 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Politics is too damn depressing. I flirt with twitter now and then. And toil away on my novel about - well I can;t reveal all my secrets.

#14.1.1.1.1 There's certainly a number of strong voices who don't post anymore. But I think that has to do with how depressing politics has become, not because of a peer-pressuring majority on the site.

I never felt anything even approaching peer pressure until yesterday, which is why it was such a jolt. It seemed to come out of nowhere. That said, I tend to assume good faith on the part of C99ers, and I think most people had no intention of making me feel that way. I certainly know there's no top-down conspiracy on the part of admins and mods to protect and encourage roving gangs of bullies, which there was on the Great Orange Satan.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@CS in AZ
Actually, CS, I have assumed that all those people--as well as DallasDoc and PhoebeLoosinhouse and lunachickie and HenryAWallace--stopped writing for the same reason you backed off: this is some seriously depressing stuff we're dealing with here. It's not surprising if people back off for a while or even stop talking altogether. I have been encouraged because many people that I thought were gone turn up again (like you) in time, indicating that a lot of people lurk.

It’s late. I do not want to be argumentative. But I never said the problem was that not everyone agrees on everything or that people have different approaches. I would direct you to where I said this.

I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

My point is I miss so many of the people who wrote here when I arrived two years ago. Hecate. Shaz and Shar. Jay Ray. Oh man, I can’t think of everyone right now - but no one can replace them. I certainly can’t! Nor would I ever try. I’m sad I came here too late. Did I always agree with them? Hell no. But it was interesting and different from the daily kos discussion of politics, democrats, etc. So refreshing! OMG, Shangi La! That’s what I miss. I can’t fix that.

But, you know this is all really personal and I doubt anyone wants to hear it. I wanted to say I’m sorry to JtC and try to let him know where I’m coming from. That’s it. So good night.

up

15 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

France. She seemed to think that he wouldn’t be so bad, but strikes and protests against his austerity policies seem to say otherwise. That is depressing, but I think it also shows what th US would be like had Clinton won.

#14.1.1.1 Actually, CS, I have assumed that all those people--as well as DallasDoc and PhoebeLoosinhouse and lunachickie and HenryAWallace--stopped writing for the same reason you backed off: this is some seriously depressing stuff we're dealing with here. It's not surprising if people back off for a while or even stop talking altogether. I have been encouraged because many people that I thought were gone turn up again (like you) in time, indicating that a lot of people lurk.

up

14 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

My tired late night response to Ellen was poorly worded. I was trying to avoid being too specific, but for the sake of clarity: I didn’t mean, at all, to suggest that everyone who doesn’t post anymore left because of peer pressure. Of course I’ve no idea why most of them aren’t around much or at all anymore. Most leave quietly without saying why, and I make no assumptions about that for anyone I don’t know personally and learned their reasons directly.

I do suspect however that many who have moved on since “the great migration” did so in part because of the overall change in topics and the focus of the discussions lost its appeal to them. Some did say as much. It’s a change in the overall focus that was so unique and interesting when I first got here. Which I miss.

My reference to not wanting to lose any more voices, due to peer pressure from the majority, was about only the one person who I came out of lurk mode to defend from such, Big Al. It was sort of a last straw, I guess. I thought, “oh no, not him too. Pretty soon there will be nothing but daily kos style politics here.”

It has nada to do with whether I agree with him or not. I do on some things, others not, or I remain undecided. But I like his challenges and his different point of view. I was adamantly opposed to the ganging up on him that was making him feel so isolated and unsupported that he would leave too. I didn’t want that to happen. Unfortunately, I failed at that too, it seems.

#14.1.1.1 Actually, CS, I have assumed that all those people--as well as DallasDoc and PhoebeLoosinhouse and lunachickie and HenryAWallace--stopped writing for the same reason you backed off: this is some seriously depressing stuff we're dealing with here. It's not surprising if people back off for a while or even stop talking altogether. I have been encouraged because many people that I thought were gone turn up again (like you) in time, indicating that a lot of people lurk.

My good friend moneysmith stopped commenting almost everywhere after Bernie got screwed over and then Trump won the election because she got burned out. She still reads this blog when she has time though. I spoke with Dallas Doc about 6 months ago and asked why he hadn't been around and he said the same thing. Plus he's busy with his practice and a few other reasons.

I look in at ToP daily and I only see the old time members post something when the issues are more dire and not about Trump, Russia Gate or any of the other tabloid gossip diaries there. I've invited a few of them here, but haven't heard from them or seen them commenting.

#14.1.1.1 Actually, CS, I have assumed that all those people--as well as DallasDoc and PhoebeLoosinhouse and lunachickie and HenryAWallace--stopped writing for the same reason you backed off: this is some seriously depressing stuff we're dealing with here. It's not surprising if people back off for a while or even stop talking altogether. I have been encouraged because many people that I thought were gone turn up again (like you) in time, indicating that a lot of people lurk.

up

8 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

With the caveat that I don't know what I may have missed happening here, (as it seems evident that I did miss something,) due to computer issues which also eventually took me off-line for some time a while back:

...I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority. ...

But I have to admit that from my perspective, this type of approach would still have been more productive than simply leaving:

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

This isn't a 'win or lose', 'victor gains the field' situation, but a varied group of people all struggling to find the best way forward, toward achieving the sort of sane, sustainable policy and world that supports humanity (in both senses), democracy and life, for the sake of everyone.

Isn't this type of fragmentation exactly what's been crippling the American (real) Left?

We can't afford to lose allies we agree with in any/many/most areas over differences in approaches in one or perhaps several area(s) - too many resources and individuals have already been subverted or lost for other reasons.

Even if we each feel that the other may be misguided in the approach taken in one area, it should be possible to work separately on our favored methods on such aims on the same discussion site, and collaboration in others should still also be possible.

We are not each other's enemy; the fascists in stolen power are, of all we value that makes life worthwhile and even possible. And we individually have to take the approach that we believe that is most likely to advance us, as a whole, toward a universally better life.

Personally, I don't think we have much time left even for the ability to speak freely - or that anyone here wants to silence or drive out anyone else aiming at the same general goals.

But everyone must have free expression, within the bounds of civility and the overall aims of the site.

We are all stressed and desperate; in my view, better that we perhaps grab at straws than at each others voices and efforts.

......

The more people trying any non-violent approach toward this, the better; any chance is better than none, even if some may appear to work against others.

In the case of the vote/no-vote, it's going to be scattered and, as is usual, a lot of American voters are not going to vote anyway and a low turn-out of 'opposition voters' is typically aimed at, in any event, by both sides of the corporate Party leadership.

If people choose not to vote, that's entirely different from their being discouraged/prevented from voting in their own best interests, or what they believe them to be

Of the people who do vote, it's likely that an unfortunate number will stay within the CorpoDem/Republicorp range.

Whatever is attempted by any grassroots may not matter, where votes are not counted;

if they do landslide Prog in whatever party/Parties, this may be over the plausibility level which TPTB feel they can bypass, increasing the numbers and ability of elected Progs to affect legislation

or the increase in cheating may put TPTB, et al, over the line to where the American public will simply refuse to accept it and finally force a free and fair election, with international support also now more likely.

Perhaps nothing any of us can do will affect anything, but the least we can do is to stick together as humans with shared overall goals and go down in good company, knowing that we did at least what we thought potentially gave us a shot.

Just my perspective, of course, but I believe mine to be the best route just as you believe yours to be, and I also believe that we all have the right of choice regarding our votes and how we use them, and the right to speak out in support of our separate preferred strategies regarding these.

It’s late. I do not want to be argumentative. But I never said the problem was that not everyone agrees on everything or that people have different approaches. I would direct you to where I said this.

I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

My point is I miss so many of the people who wrote here when I arrived two years ago. Hecate. Shaz and Shar. Jay Ray. Oh man, I can’t think of everyone right now - but no one can replace them. I certainly can’t! Nor would I ever try. I’m sad I came here too late. Did I always agree with them? Hell no. But it was interesting and different from the daily kos discussion of politics, democrats, etc. So refreshing! OMG, Shangi La! That’s what I miss. I can’t fix that.

But, you know this is all really personal and I doubt anyone wants to hear it. I wanted to say I’m sorry to JtC and try to let him know where I’m coming from. That’s it. So good night.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

With the caveat that I don't know what I may have missed happening here, (as it seems evident that I did miss something,) due to computer issues which also eventually took me off-line for some time a while back:

...I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority. ...

But I have to admit that from my perspective, this type of approach would still have been more productive than simply leaving:

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

This isn't a 'win or lose', 'victor gains the field' situation, but a varied group of people all struggling to find the best way forward, toward achieving the sort of sane, sustainable policy and world that supports humanity (in both senses), democracy and life, for the sake of everyone.

Isn't this type of fragmentation exactly what's been crippling the American (real) Left?

We can't afford to lose allies we agree with in any/many/most areas over differences in approaches in one or perhaps several area(s) - too many resources and individuals have already been subverted or lost for other reasons.

Even if we each feel that the other may be misguided in the approach taken in one area, it should be possible to work separately on our favored methods on such aims on the same discussion site, and collaboration in others should still also be possible.

We are not each other's enemy; the fascists in stolen power are, of all we value that makes life worthwhile and even possible. And we individually have to take the approach that we believe that is most likely to advance us, as a whole, toward a universally better life.

Personally, I don't think we have much time left even for the ability to speak freely - or that anyone here wants to silence or drive out anyone else aiming at the same general goals.

But everyone must have free expression, within the bounds of civility and the overall aims of the site.

We are all stressed and desperate; in my view, better that we perhaps grab at straws than at each others voices and efforts.

......

The more people trying any non-violent approach toward this, the better; any chance is better than none, even if some may appear to work against others.

In the case of the vote/no-vote, it's going to be scattered and, as is usual, a lot of American voters are not going to vote anyway and a low turn-out of 'opposition voters' is typically aimed at, in any event, by both sides of the corporate Party leadership.

If people choose not to vote, that's entirely different from their being discouraged/prevented from voting in their own best interests, or what they believe them to be

Of the people who do vote, it's likely that an unfortunate number will stay within the CorpoDem/Republicorp range.

Whatever is attempted by any grassroots may not matter, where votes are not counted;

if they do landslide Prog in whatever party/Parties, this may be over the plausibility level which TPTB feel they can bypass, increasing the numbers and ability of elected Progs to affect legislation

or the increase in cheating may put TPTB, et al, over the line to where the American public will simply refuse to accept it and finally force a free and fair election, with international support also now more likely.

Perhaps nothing any of us can do will affect anything, but the least we can do is to stick together as humans with shared overall goals and go down in good company, knowing that we did at least what we thought potentially gave us a shot.

Just my perspective, of course, but I believe mine to be the best route just as you believe yours to be, and I also believe that we all have the right of choice regarding our votes and how we use them, and the right to speak out in support of our separate preferred strategies regarding these.

Calling out perceived idiocy is a relative reflection, as you call out to it stares back at you. The person you call out as idiotic is most assuredly thinking the same of you, so who is correct? My honest opinion, Mckenna wreaks of intellectual intolerance, but who am I to judge? I am tolerant of his opinion as he may not be tolerant of mine. I agree with him that political correctness is out of hand and I'm not a big fan of it myself, but in my mind tolerance is the key to a better society. I also think his idea of goring the idiocy is just maybe the wrong tactic on a board like this, we've all seen what that leads to. Occasionally real idiocy does rear it's head here and folks do a pretty good job of goring it, but goring for the sake of goring just leads to acrimony, especially with folks that agree with each other on 99% of the issues, it can cause walls to be built unnecessarily. But that's just my humble opinion.

What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

What I don't want c99p to be: Intolerant. Partisan. An echo chamber. Members uncivil to other members.

What I wont allow it to be: Controlled by any political faction of any flavor to the point where no other discussion is allowed.

Bottom line: I've said it many times in the comments here that the struggle is not horizontal, it is vertical and until we 99%ers across the political spectrum can work things out with each other, there will be no change in said struggle, IMHO.

Thank you for this heartfelt and thought provoking comment. This is exactly what c99p is supposed to be about.

That is a totally awesome response and I can’t thank you enough. Debating ideas and criticism of them is exactly what I believe in, and you take on Terence McKenna quite well. He was of course speaking relative to his time, and “goring” certain new age ideas was sorely needed at that time. The thing that resonates with me is the part about seeking truth and clarity, even at the cost of peace in the valley at all times.

But yes, we are in agreement that this approach is wrong for this place. That’s exactly what I was saying, and thank you so much for listening and responding.

Honestly JtC I wish you would speak more often. You have such great insight. I understand why you don’t, you’re so careful and conscious about your position of authority to influence the conversation. But it’s so great to hear your real voice out here. Thanks again.

Calling out perceived idiocy is a relative reflection, as you call out to it stares back at you. The person you call out as idiotic is most assuredly thinking the same of you, so who is correct? My honest opinion, Mckenna wreaks of intellectual intolerance, but who am I to judge? I am tolerant of his opinion as he may not be tolerant of mine. I agree with him that political correctness is out of hand and I'm not a big fan of it myself, but in my mind tolerance is the key to a better society. I also think his idea of goring the idiocy is just maybe the wrong tactic on a board like this, we've all seen what that leads to. Occasionally real idiocy does rear it's head here and folks do a pretty good job of goring it, but goring for the sake of goring just leads to acrimony, especially with folks that agree with each other on 99% of the issues, it can cause walls to be built unnecessarily. But that's just my humble opinion.

What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

What I don't want c99p to be: Intolerant. Partisan. An echo chamber. Members uncivil to other members.

What I wont allow it to be: Controlled by any political faction of any flavor to the point where no other discussion is allowed.

Bottom line: I've said it many times in the comments here that the struggle is not horizontal, it is vertical and until we 99%ers across the political spectrum can work things out with each other, there will be no change in said struggle, IMHO.

Thank you for this heartfelt and thought provoking comment. This is exactly what c99p is supposed to be about.

yours and JtC’s exchange, is a reflection of what animates the discourse for me here. Somehow it has to do with generosity of the spirit (the opposite of intolerance), which in my mind has little to do with purely intellectual concepts. We are all, above anything else, sentient beings who flourish in the understanding and acceptance of others, regardless of our differences. Generally, I believe that as long as our objective is sincere and we remain open to the perspective of others we have a greater chance of overcoming these differences. We are so much more than our individual thoughts at some explicit point in time, as we are continually evolving. It’s hard for me to imagine a world of peace without leaving ample room for differences of all varieties.

That is a totally awesome response and I can’t thank you enough. Debating ideas and criticism of them is exactly what I believe in, and you take on Terence McKenna quite well. He was of course speaking relative to his time, and “goring” certain new age ideas was sorely needed at that time. The thing that resonates with me is the part about seeking truth and clarity, even at the cost of peace in the valley at all times.

But yes, we are in agreement that this approach is wrong for this place. That’s exactly what I was saying, and thank you so much for listening and responding.

Honestly JtC I wish you would speak more often. You have such great insight. I understand why you don’t, you’re so careful and conscious about your position of authority to influence the conversation. But it’s so great to hear your real voice out here. Thanks again.

yours and JtC’s exchange, is a reflection of what animates the discourse for me here. Somehow it has to do with generosity of the spirit (the opposite of intolerance), which in my mind has little to do with purely intellectual concepts. We are all, above anything else, sentient beings who flourish in the understanding and acceptance of others, regardless of our differences. Generally, I believe that as long as our objective is sincere and we remain open to the perspective of others we have a greater chance of overcoming these differences. We are so much more than our individual thoughts at some explicit point in time, as we are continually evolving. It’s hard for me to imagine a world of peace without leaving ample room for differences of all varieties.

yours and JtC’s exchange, is a reflection of what animates the discourse for me here. Somehow it has to do with generosity of the spirit (the opposite of intolerance), which in my mind has little to do with purely intellectual concepts. We are all, above anything else, sentient beings who flourish in the understanding and acceptance of others, regardless of our differences. Generally, I believe that as long as our objective is sincere and we remain open to the perspective of others we have a greater chance of overcoming these differences. We are so much more than our individual thoughts at some explicit point in time, as we are continually evolving. It’s hard for me to imagine a world of peace without leaving ample room for differences of all varieties.

I always enjoy the music you highlight your comments with. The tenderly evocative portraits in this video that accompanied a great song, was especially enjoyed.

I love the variety and diversity of thought that is freely expressed here. It contributes to my understanding of politics, expanded communication, self-reflection, source of good music, etc. I can’t imagine the same enjoyment in an echo chamber.

I think the more individual experiences and visions we come with, the better - unlike my general feeling, that ‘less is more’.

If gjohnsit in particular and anyone in general gets driven out of comments, I am not going to be happy. If we all just shut up and quit participating, JtC might as well shut it down now. We won’t be an echo chamber, we’ll be an intolerant cult under a voluntary oath of silence. The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it. So he decided it would be best that he not comment. Been that way ever since despite our best efforts to make it not so.

That is a totally awesome response and I can’t thank you enough. Debating ideas and criticism of them is exactly what I believe in, and you take on Terence McKenna quite well. He was of course speaking relative to his time, and “goring” certain new age ideas was sorely needed at that time. The thing that resonates with me is the part about seeking truth and clarity, even at the cost of peace in the valley at all times.

But yes, we are in agreement that this approach is wrong for this place. That’s exactly what I was saying, and thank you so much for listening and responding.

Honestly JtC I wish you would speak more often. You have such great insight. I understand why you don’t, you’re so careful and conscious about your position of authority to influence the conversation. But it’s so great to hear your real voice out here. Thanks again.

@dkmich@dkmich
It seems to me that gjohnsit has received massive support over the past two days. He told me himself that majority opinion on the site has gone his way. The idea that he is being driven and harried into silence doesn't add up.

If gjohnsit in particular and anyone in general gets driven out of comments, I am not going to be happy. If we all just shut up and quit participating, JtC might as well shut it down now. We won’t be an echo chamber, we’ll be an intolerant cult under a voluntary oath of silence. The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it. So he decided it would be best that he not comment. Been that way ever since despite our best efforts to make it not so.

up

12 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

When JtC ran into a few problems with his comments, he decided to quit commenting. We all told him no and supported his continued participation. None the less, JtC made the decision to stop commenting and stuck to it. I know this decision was complicated by also being the blog owner, but nonetheless, gone JtC basically is.

Blogs are not what they used to be. Social media is changing the landscape in many ways. I see and am friends with many of the people now missing from blogs on Facebook and Twitter. Some still float through here on occasion. Even the many exiles that went to Reddit have left its two sister sites. I think your original observation about so many being fed up with politics and people, in general, is most accurate. I don't believe the overall tone at c99 is intolerant or responsible for "driving people away". Maybe their departure is because of their own intolerance for the position of others.

What I have a problem with is both the intolerance and holding a grudge. I can have a heartfelt disagreement with someone without disowning them. The actions of those who can't and leave to never come back, I see as akin to taking their toys and going home for a good pout.

#15.1.2#15.1.2 It seems to me that gjohnsit has received massive support over the past two days. He told me himself that majority opinion on the site has gone his way. The idea that he is being driven and harried into silence doesn't add up.

When JtC ran into a few problems with his comments, he decided to quit commenting. We all told him no and supported his continued participation. None the less, JtC made the decision to stop commenting and stuck to it. I know this decision was complicated by also being the blog owner, but nonetheless, gone JtC basically is.

Blogs are not what they used to be. Social media is changing the landscape in many ways. I see and am friends with many of the people now missing from blogs on Facebook and Twitter. Some still float through here on occasion. Even the many exiles that went to Reddit have left its two sister sites. I think your original observation about so many being fed up with politics and people, in general, is most accurate. I don't believe the overall tone at c99 is intolerant or responsible for "driving people away". Maybe their departure is because of their own intolerance for the position of others.

What I have a problem with is both the intolerance and holding a grudge. I can have a heartfelt disagreement with someone without disowning them. The actions of those who can't and leave to never come back, I see as akin to taking their toys and going home for a good pout.

up

10 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

If gjohnsit in particular and anyone in general gets driven out of comments, I am not going to be happy. If we all just shut up and quit participating, JtC might as well shut it down now. We won’t be an echo chamber, we’ll be an intolerant cult under a voluntary oath of silence. The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it. So he decided it would be best that he not comment. Been that way ever since despite our best efforts to make it not so.

The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it

What I really regret is that those I respect most, don't talk much. (JtC and Joe among them) And I don't like to talk in the private message system of this site. To me it's like cheating. If you have to say something it should be in the public in a form that is acceptable to most of the audience.

I have a lot of difficulties to understand when someone feels uncomfortable or even pushed out and attacked by another member's comment. May be because I am not American raised.
Does that mean I have a sick skin? Or am insensitive? Or don't have enough of the 'cultural background and understanding of the US'? So what, online is world-wide, not limited to one country. I can't stand dickheads hard-nosed arrogant 'know everything better than the rest of you' kind of types no matter where they are coming from. They are plentiful everywhere. Europe and US and elsewhere in the world.

So, down with those hard-nosed arrogants world-wide deplorables.

Jeez. That thread is getting at me.

I am clueless. I missed some people here, I sometimes get a little pissed (mostly silently) when some repeat their view points over and over again. Certain subjects are just overfeed like an overbearing mother can't stop feeding their babies enough chocolate pudding. Baby gets sick of it and cries, mommy gets sick of it, because baby cries.

If gjohnsit in particular and anyone in general gets driven out of comments, I am not going to be happy. If we all just shut up and quit participating, JtC might as well shut it down now. We won’t be an echo chamber, we’ll be an intolerant cult under a voluntary oath of silence. The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it. So he decided it would be best that he not comment. Been that way ever since despite our best efforts to make it not so.

@JtCWhat do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

That's basically what I wanted it to be, when I and some others first conceived of it. An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

The fact that we have succeeded in attaining that goal even in part, for a period of years, is pretty astounding given the state of American culture (I think most people here are American) and also given the tendency of the Internet to devolve conversations and destroy communities.

Calling out perceived idiocy is a relative reflection, as you call out to it stares back at you. The person you call out as idiotic is most assuredly thinking the same of you, so who is correct? My honest opinion, Mckenna wreaks of intellectual intolerance, but who am I to judge? I am tolerant of his opinion as he may not be tolerant of mine. I agree with him that political correctness is out of hand and I'm not a big fan of it myself, but in my mind tolerance is the key to a better society. I also think his idea of goring the idiocy is just maybe the wrong tactic on a board like this, we've all seen what that leads to. Occasionally real idiocy does rear it's head here and folks do a pretty good job of goring it, but goring for the sake of goring just leads to acrimony, especially with folks that agree with each other on 99% of the issues, it can cause walls to be built unnecessarily. But that's just my humble opinion.

What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

What I don't want c99p to be: Intolerant. Partisan. An echo chamber. Members uncivil to other members.

What I wont allow it to be: Controlled by any political faction of any flavor to the point where no other discussion is allowed.

Bottom line: I've said it many times in the comments here that the struggle is not horizontal, it is vertical and until we 99%ers across the political spectrum can work things out with each other, there will be no change in said struggle, IMHO.

Thank you for this heartfelt and thought provoking comment. This is exactly what c99p is supposed to be about.

up

13 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

#15What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

That's basically what I wanted it to be, when I and some others first conceived of it. An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

The fact that we have succeeded in attaining that goal even in part, for a period of years, is pretty astounding given the state of American culture (I think most people here are American) and also given the tendency of the Internet to devolve conversations and destroy communities.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

I rarely say I believe anything absolutely, but you've hit close to the bedrock of my beliefs.

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

up

10 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Though I do believe that a person can request that such criticism be made in certain times and places, as long as said request is being made in good faith (I recall when I was protesting against nukes in the 80s, we were required once to protest in a field with some cows outside of town.) I'm excluding obvious lameness here, like "the free speech zone is ten miles away."

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

I rarely say I believe anything absolutely, but you've hit close to the bedrock of my beliefs.

up

6 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

I don't believe you should even ask anyone to "put a lid on it" in any way here, as long as Rule #1 is observed.

civility- politeness, courtesy

#15.2.1.1 Though I do believe that a person can request that such criticism be made in certain times and places, as long as said request is being made in good faith (I recall when I was protesting against nukes in the 80s, we were required once to protest in a field with some cows outside of town.) I'm excluding obvious lameness here, like "the free speech zone is ten miles away."

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

up

4 users have voted.

—

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus

@CS in AZI made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I think what we're doing, as a site, is trying to decide whether or not it is such a forum, and where the boundaries are.

Let's be honest: it's damned hard to preserve a space that operates on those principles. It's amazing that I can remember a time when the mainstream was at least nominally and to some extent truly conducted according to those principles. Before the dark times. Before the Empire.

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

up

8 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
speaking of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcast media of yore.
I've always seen/felt the recreation/re-emergence of that policy here at C99% and in a respectful way.
It was that policy then (1960s) that sparked my interest in politics and world affairs at a young age. The ability to hear two different points of view, and to determine for myself which had merit, or which needed more clarification, was the beginning of my questioning of presented authority.
Very, very sorely needed by our young people today.
Thoroughly understood why the ruling regime will fight tooth and nail to prevent its restoration.
Thanks to JtC and everyone here some of it survives. Thanks for bringing that up.
My two cents.

#15.2.1I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I think what we're doing, as a site, is trying to decide whether or not it is such a forum, and where the boundaries are.

Let's be honest: it's damned hard to preserve a space that operates on those principles. It's amazing that I can remember a time when the mainstream was at least nominally and to some extent truly conducted according to those principles. Before the dark times. Before the Empire.

@earthling1@earthling1
Yes, that is the sort of ethos I mean. However, the openness to differing points of view was, as I recall, generally complimented by the assumption that one can have one's own opinion, but not one's own facts (h/t Senator Moynihan). That's what I'd call rational discourse, and it's one of the foundation stones of any republican or democratic society, or, really any form of anti-totalitarianism. That's probably why it's been under assault since Reagan. By now, a lot of people are barely able to recognize it. Some don't even know it's a thing. I've heard educators talking about this. Horribly, the powerful have mobilized bastardized versions of the old social justice movements I loved to tear down rational discourse, by turning them into vehicles for shutting down dissent.

Sort of like this:

Hope I didn't trigger anybody by that last sentence /s

Oh, and by the way: I really hate how the word "trigger" in the post-traumatic sense has been broadened and watered down to mean "something made me sad or uncomfortable and it's your fault." Most people who use the word "triggered" online have got no damned clue what a person actually triggered and reexperiencing trauma is like. They sure as hell ain't having piefights on the internet, I can tell you that.

#15.2.1.3
speaking of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcast media of yore.
I've always seen/felt the recreation/re-emergence of that policy here at C99% and in a respectful way.
It was that policy then (1960s) that sparked my interest in politics and world affairs at a young age. The ability to hear two different points of view, and to determine for myself which had merit, or which needed more clarification, was the beginning of my questioning of presented authority.
Very, very sorely needed by our young people today.
Thoroughly understood why the ruling regime will fight tooth and nail to prevent its restoration.
Thanks to JtC and everyone here some of it survives. Thanks for bringing that up.
My two cents.

up

10 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

And even though I was a kid, I knew it was a fatal blow to the US. I continue to regard it as the day the US died.

After that, discourse became explosively furious because ordinary citizens could never again directly and publicly challenge the subversive "reality" touted by the plutocrat-owned media. The for-profit news media now controlled and invented historical fact. The population became dumb and misinformed, and a frustrated fury festered inside them. They could not think.

The problems at c99 are a direct result of the mental damage caused by that evil suppression.

#15.2.1.3
speaking of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcast media of yore.
I've always seen/felt the recreation/re-emergence of that policy here at C99% and in a respectful way.
It was that policy then (1960s) that sparked my interest in politics and world affairs at a young age. The ability to hear two different points of view, and to determine for myself which had merit, or which needed more clarification, was the beginning of my questioning of presented authority.
Very, very sorely needed by our young people today.
Thoroughly understood why the ruling regime will fight tooth and nail to prevent its restoration.
Thanks to JtC and everyone here some of it survives. Thanks for bringing that up.
My two cents.

up

13 users have voted.

—

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus

Calling out perceived idiocy is a relative reflection, as you call out to it stares back at you. The person you call out as idiotic is most assuredly thinking the same of you, so who is correct? My honest opinion, Mckenna wreaks of intellectual intolerance, but who am I to judge? I am tolerant of his opinion as he may not be tolerant of mine. I agree with him that political correctness is out of hand and I'm not a big fan of it myself, but in my mind tolerance is the key to a better society. I also think his idea of goring the idiocy is just maybe the wrong tactic on a board like this, we've all seen what that leads to. Occasionally real idiocy does rear it's head here and folks do a pretty good job of goring it, but goring for the sake of goring just leads to acrimony, especially with folks that agree with each other on 99% of the issues, it can cause walls to be built unnecessarily. But that's just my humble opinion.

What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

What I don't want c99p to be: Intolerant. Partisan. An echo chamber. Members uncivil to other members.

What I wont allow it to be: Controlled by any political faction of any flavor to the point where no other discussion is allowed.

Bottom line: I've said it many times in the comments here that the struggle is not horizontal, it is vertical and until we 99%ers across the political spectrum can work things out with each other, there will be no change in said struggle, IMHO.

Thank you for this heartfelt and thought provoking comment. This is exactly what c99p is supposed to be about.

PC has gotten so complicated since it was first branded. But it does seem to me that choosing a position then labeling another wrong or "idiotic" is our own brand of PC.

There are many subjects I want to write about but life has been in the way and maybe for awhile yet.

However, if I ever have the time to write cogently, some opinions will not be mainstream: on medicine and medical care; education; our form of citizen participation. I'm sure that doesn't cover it all.

We have escaped to Europe, and by doing so have exposed ourselves to other points of view including what people from other countries think is going on in the US.

It's difficult to listen to others explain or turn purple about what Trump is doing and why, when in our view they have a very narrow slice of and a stereotypical view of what is going on.

We try to slowly add bits to the conversation, but some of the views are culturally embedded.

On this blog, graciously provided by JtC and supported by the writing of others, I am hoping that there will always be room for writing by people with different points of view, with respect.

I too miss Hecate and the list is longer than the names we have seen in this thread. Would that we could send out the olive branches.

And be civil and civilized with each other.

Thank you.

up

19 users have voted.

—

You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce

If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.

@LeChienHarry
Some of the missing specifically said they were taking a break to focus on " real life" for a while. They may be lurking part of the time. I think their absence is more of a comment on state of the USA than on this site.

PC has gotten so complicated since it was first branded. But it does seem to me that choosing a position then labeling another wrong or "idiotic" is our own brand of PC.

There are many subjects I want to write about but life has been in the way and maybe for awhile yet.

However, if I ever have the time to write cogently, some opinions will not be mainstream: on medicine and medical care; education; our form of citizen participation. I'm sure that doesn't cover it all.

We have escaped to Europe, and by doing so have exposed ourselves to other points of view including what people from other countries think is going on in the US.

It's difficult to listen to others explain or turn purple about what Trump is doing and why, when in our view they have a very narrow slice of and a stereotypical view of what is going on.

We try to slowly add bits to the conversation, but some of the views are culturally embedded.

On this blog, graciously provided by JtC and supported by the writing of others, I am hoping that there will always be room for writing by people with different points of view, with respect.

I too miss Hecate and the list is longer than the names we have seen in this thread. Would that we could send out the olive branches.

#16 Some of the missing specifically said they were taking a break to focus on " real life" for a while. They may be lurking part of the time. I think their absence is more of a comment on state of the USA than on this site.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

This is so opposite of what was going on at DKos, it's hard to put into words. And I must say that CS in AZ came to my defense over at the other site more times than I could count, even if she didn't totally agree with me. It was the openness of expression in a civilized way without censorship that we both kept battling and I consider her one of the most valuable connections I made during the years on DKos. This is now my morning go to site and I feel better about that decision every day.

Thumbs up to all of you.

up

24 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

This is so opposite of what was going on at DKos, it's hard to put into words. And I must say that CS in AZ came to my defense over at the other site more times than I could count, even if she didn't totally agree with me. It was the openness of expression in a civilized way without censorship that we both kept battling and I consider her one of the most valuable connections I made during the years on DKos. This is now my morning go to site and I feel better about that decision every day.

Thumbs up to all of you.

up

13 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Civilization (like other concepts such as true democracy and justice,) is an ideal as well as an essential stemming from basic human survival characteristics and now key to the global survival of life. It must not be quenched and fragmented anywhere it survives.

I’ve beeen thinking just these past couple of days about that long battle that you and I waged over there, pretty much alone, against that small but pernicious gang who made it their mission in life to hound you relentlessly and try to silence you because you expressed an unpopular view they didn’t want to answer or ever see talked about. That is something I feel strongly about. It gets me into trouble sometimes.

Of course in such a large ocean of chatter as daily kos, hardly anyone even noticed. But it was worth it to me, and I’m very glad I got to know you, listened to your views, and I’m glad you are here.

This is so opposite of what was going on at DKos, it's hard to put into words. And I must say that CS in AZ came to my defense over at the other site more times than I could count, even if she didn't totally agree with me. It was the openness of expression in a civilized way without censorship that we both kept battling and I consider her one of the most valuable connections I made during the years on DKos. This is now my morning go to site and I feel better about that decision every day.

@CS in AZ
I remember, on sporadic occasions, being at odds with FT back at the GOS, on matters relating to "Papa Francesco" ... before my mind had been expanded. And I owe some of that expansion to FT, and many others.

This is why we need a place like this, where we can recognize and learn from differences of opinion, and build respect for the ones who teach us new things.

I’ve beeen thinking just these past couple of days about that long battle that you and I waged over there, pretty much alone, against that small but pernicious gang who made it their mission in life to hound you relentlessly and try to silence you because you expressed an unpopular view they didn’t want to answer or ever see talked about. That is something I feel strongly about. It gets me into trouble sometimes.

Of course in such a large ocean of chatter as daily kos, hardly anyone even noticed. But it was worth it to me, and I’m very glad I got to know you, listened to your views, and I’m glad you are here.

but I sure appreciate your comment! One of the things I did after I was put on the year time out (ends in Oct) was to try to find Betty Clermont and put her together with this site. She had been banned for her excellent columns on the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church and the false images that we were being fed by media about the true nature of "Papa Francesco". I'm so glad I was able to do this as I saw her last column being lauded here instead of her being roasted for telling the truth. Having once been a Christian and having moved my mind to atheism, I know full well how good solid truth telling and argument making can change minds.

#17.2 I remember, on sporadic occasions, being at odds with FT back at the GOS, on matters relating to "Papa Francesco" ... before my mind had been expanded. And I owe some of that expansion to FT, and many others.

This is why we need a place like this, where we can recognize and learn from differences of opinion, and build respect for the ones who teach us new things.

up

8 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

I’ve beeen thinking just these past couple of days about that long battle that you and I waged over there, pretty much alone, against that small but pernicious gang who made it their mission in life to hound you relentlessly and try to silence you because you expressed an unpopular view they didn’t want to answer or ever see talked about. That is something I feel strongly about. It gets me into trouble sometimes.

Of course in such a large ocean of chatter as daily kos, hardly anyone even noticed. But it was worth it to me, and I’m very glad I got to know you, listened to your views, and I’m glad you are here.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Can be a challenging combination for anyone who has walked the long road of realization. The political landscape for many can be a very depressing place to spend considerable time in, while social can be a place rife with either malicious intent or gobsmacking ignorance.

That this community, and the owners of this blog, strive to include all viewpoints and is host to a variety of remarkably intelligent voices, many of whom I enjoying hearing from with affection and interest, is what keeps me coming back to this place.

Thank you JtC for reiterating for everyone here what the parameters for political discourse intend to be.

up

14 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

Can be a challenging combination for anyone who has walked the long road of realization. The political landscape for many can be a very depressing place to spend considerable time in, while social can be a place rife with either malicious intent or gobsmacking ignorance.

That this community, and the owners of this blog, strive to include all viewpoints and is host to a variety of remarkably intelligent voices, many of whom I enjoying hearing from with affection and interest, is what keeps me coming back to this place.

Thank you JtC for reiterating for everyone here what the parameters for political discourse intend to be.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

In terms of content. For those of us who do not believe in electoral reform, there are few essays reflecting that. There could be a few reasons for that, many of them lack of time, which is the main reason I am unable to write here more. And it's a shame because I feel we need to at least counterbalance the prolific essays written here on the subject of reforming the Democrats, often by the same person, which contributes to the impression that that is the main message here.

On the few occasions I have posted essays, I’ve usually put at least two or three days into research and writing, because I feel it’s necessary to do my best to get things right and present well-researched, accurate information, with some actual point to it beyond just expressing my opinion on something. A couple of times I did quick posts about some news article or whatever, but I don’t generally think that kind of thing is worthwhile to make an essay out of either.

And then there’s the obligation — to me — of responding with thought and consideration to any comments. So, posting an essay means devoting at least a day or two or three to tending it after posting, along with development time. I would never feel comfortable just blowing off commenters or ignoring it if someone says they think I got something wrong. I’d have to address that, by looking into it and then responding with a real answer to them, one way or another. So it’s a big commitment of time and energy to post even one good essay, and I do have a full time day job, a house and family and pets, etc.

I get annoyed frankly at how often I hear, well then go write your own essay, or twenty, every week. Jeeze, why can’t we just have a discussion in the comments? I often spend an hour just writing a reply to someone. Lots of people post excellent, detailed comments here, sometimes better than many of the original posts. Good discussions in the comments makes it interesting! Everyone going off to write their own “here’s my opinion” posts instead... and no challenges or debate in the comments, that actually sounds dreadful to me.

In terms of content. For those of us who do not believe in electoral reform, there are few essays reflecting that. There could be a few reasons for that, many of them lack of time, which is the main reason I am unable to write here more. And it's a shame because I feel we need to at least counterbalance the prolific essays written here on the subject of reforming the Democrats, often by the same person, which contributes to the impression that that is the main message here.

In their essay writing, the quality of the writing would certainly reflect that. Having said that, I'm also thinking that maybe just getting the message, opinion, response, out there has value too? It would certainly balance out what is a fairly one sided message here, and give others a chance to reply to essays they feel more comfortable replying to. Many people just don't feel comfortable disagreeing with the message of a prominent essayist whose views on this site are well known to all.

On the few occasions I have posted essays, I’ve usually put at least two or three days into research and writing, because I feel it’s necessary to do my best to get things right and present well-researched, accurate information, with some actual point to it beyond just expressing my opinion on something. A couple of times I did quick posts about some news article or whatever, but I don’t generally think that kind of thing is worthwhile to make an essay out of either.

And then there’s the obligation — to me — of responding with thought and consideration to any comments. So, posting an essay means devoting at least a day or two or three to tending it after posting, along with development time. I would never feel comfortable just blowing off commenters or ignoring it if someone says they think I got something wrong. I’d have to address that, by looking into it and then responding with a real answer to them, one way or another. So it’s a big commitment of time and energy to post even one good essay, and I do have a full time day job, a house and family and pets, etc.

I get annoyed frankly at how often I hear, well then go write your own essay, or twenty, every week. Jeeze, why can’t we just have a discussion in the comments? I often spend an hour just writing a reply to someone. Lots of people post excellent, detailed comments here, sometimes better than many of the original posts. Good discussions in the comments makes it interesting! Everyone going off to write their own “here’s my opinion” posts instead... and no challenges or debate in the comments, that actually sounds dreadful to me.

up

8 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

I just read that most awesome comment from MsDidi that you had responded to, and I’m so grateful she spoke up. One of the hardest things for me lately has been the “it’s all in your head” type of responses... when I know deep down that what I see in front of my eyes is not crazy.

And yes, you are right. If we want to see a change, we’re going to have to make it happen. That’s totally fair. I would participate in such an effort, as long as I’m not going it all alone. Thank you Zoebear.

In their essay writing, the quality of the writing would certainly reflect that. Having said that, I'm also thinking that maybe just getting the message, opinion, response, out there has value too? It would certainly balance out what is a fairly one sided message here, and give others a chance to reply to essays they feel more comfortable replying to. Many people just don't feel comfortable disagreeing with the message of a prominent essayist whose views on this site are well known to all.

Give me a few days and I'll PM you and maybe we can brainstorm how to organize this? No need to worry. We can take this in baby steps. No huge commitments needed. Just a little flexibility and willingness.

I just read that most awesome comment from MsDidi that you had responded to, and I’m so grateful she spoke up. One of the hardest things for me lately has been the “it’s all in your head” type of responses... when I know deep down that what I see in front of my eyes is not crazy.

And yes, you are right. If we want to see a change, we’re going to have to make it happen. That’s totally fair. I would participate in such an effort, as long as I’m not going it all alone. Thank you Zoebear.

up

9 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

I thoroughly appreciate the well-researched, -thought-out, and -tended essays on particular topics.

And: I also appreciate the drive-bys. Because even if the original poster doesn't have the time to do the above things, they've at least opened a discussion that C99 members can more fully flesh out in the comments. And they (we) never fail to deliver, every day. I learn so much from it. I think this is the definition of an "interactive community."

In their essay writing, the quality of the writing would certainly reflect that. Having said that, I'm also thinking that maybe just getting the message, opinion, response, out there has value too? It would certainly balance out what is a fairly one sided message here, and give others a chance to reply to essays they feel more comfortable replying to. Many people just don't feel comfortable disagreeing with the message of a prominent essayist whose views on this site are well known to all.

I thoroughly appreciate the well-researched, -thought-out, and -tended essays on particular topics.

And: I also appreciate the drive-bys. Because even if the original poster doesn't have the time to do the above things, they've at least opened a discussion that C99 members can more fully flesh out in the comments. And they (we) never fail to deliver, every day. I learn so much from it. I think this is the definition of an "interactive community."

up

7 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

Baby steps. A small commitment from each of us to pull together a few paragraphs in our own essay to reflect our side so that others like us may feel they have a space to comment. In the brainstorming session we can discuss angles we feel comfortable with, or prefer to take in our writing. I think we may find a more liberating field of topics to write about than we initially anticipate. I already have some ideas brewing. Could be fun

Baby steps. A small commitment from each of us to pull together a few paragraphs in our own essay to reflect our side so that others like us may feel they have a space to comment. In the brainstorming session we can discuss angles we feel comfortable with, or prefer to take in our writing. I think we may find a more liberating field of topics to write about than we initially anticipate. I already have some ideas brewing. Could be fun

In their essay writing, the quality of the writing would certainly reflect that. Having said that, I'm also thinking that maybe just getting the message, opinion, response, out there has value too? It would certainly balance out what is a fairly one sided message here, and give others a chance to reply to essays they feel more comfortable replying to. Many people just don't feel comfortable disagreeing with the message of a prominent essayist whose views on this site are well known to all.

up

5 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

I figure though, that if a few of us agree to post something, anything, once a week, our voices will be present for others, especially the lurkers, to come out and engage in a thread they feel comfortable engaging in. I don't have a lot of time, which is my obstacle, so the essays that I will write won't be very long. But as someone else brought up, even "drive-by" essays, will at least open up the discussion.

So, there's that.

P.S. I would love to include you in the brainstorming session, if I may, on angles we could take. I'm thinking about taking a very "wide angle" on the subject, so I think there will be room for everyone who does not believe in electoral reform to write an essay.

#18.1.1.1.1 I'm one of those who hasn't been writing a lot. Part of it's depression, part of it's just that it's difficult to get a writing practice going.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

I figure though, that if a few of us agree to post something, anything, once a week, our voices will be present for others, especially the lurkers, to come out and engage in a thread they feel comfortable engaging in. I don't have a lot of time, which is my obstacle, so the essays that I will write won't be very long. But as someone else brought up, even "drive-by" essays, will at least open up the discussion.

So, there's that.

P.S. I would love to include you in the brainstorming session, if I may, on angles we could take. I'm thinking about taking a very "wide angle" on the subject, so I think there will be room for everyone who does not believe in electoral reform to write an essay.

up

5 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

sometimes essays are made up of links and a few comments; might not take up too much time to post a few informative articles/videos that you've come across/particularly like, and it might only take a few minutes to add an overview or other commentary?

Or possibly collaborate between a few like-minded people adding their experiences, strategies and views in maybe just a couple of paragraphs each,for a cross-section?

Just to get ideas/explanations out there - and start discussion - when pressed for time?

Edit: totally ninja'd, of course, just following your comment, lol. Glad to see that things are underway!

In terms of content. For those of us who do not believe in electoral reform, there are few essays reflecting that. There could be a few reasons for that, many of them lack of time, which is the main reason I am unable to write here more. And it's a shame because I feel we need to at least counterbalance the prolific essays written here on the subject of reforming the Democrats, often by the same person, which contributes to the impression that that is the main message here.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

sometimes essays are made up of links and a few comments; might not take up too much time to post a few informative articles/videos that you've come across/particularly like, and it might only take a few minutes to add an overview or other commentary?

Or possibly collaborate between a few like-minded people adding their experiences, strategies and views in maybe just a couple of paragraphs each,for a cross-section?

Just to get ideas/explanations out there - and start discussion - when pressed for time?

Edit: totally ninja'd, of course, just following your comment, lol. Glad to see that things are underway!

up

5 users have voted.

—

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

There's no such thing as a fully rational human. We all have our idiosyncratic cognitive blind spots, both with respect to our beliefs, and with respect to our behavior. Yesterday, an incomprehensibly "successful" woman with a teenage daughter killed herself. The woman's sister tells us that this woman knew she needed help, but couldn't seek it out, because the publicity would damage her brand. Good fucking fuck me, the woman designed handbags and gladrags. FUCK THE FUCKING BRAND.

That said, my personal opinion is that a meaningful fraction of perfectly decent contributors to this website regularly engage in a particular kind of broken thinking that isn't just irrational -- it's delusional.

And you know what? I mostly just don't give a flying fuck. If someone makes a claim that is trivially disprovable, I will offer the refutation, and leave it at that. Otherwise, I will either ignore manifestations of fallacious opinionation, or state my straightforward opposing opinion and leave it at that.

I live in a nation in which more than half of my fellow citizens, including some who are very dear to me, comically believe that the whole fucking universe was created by a being that was/is somehow both quite a lot like our own broken ridiculous selves, yet capable of bringing into existence, in case you missed it earlier in this sentence, The Whole Fucking Universe, a being "who" takes a very personal, very human interest in each and every puny one of us, who when our physical body expires -- a physical body which is, I'm sorry to disabuse some of you, is the only manifestation of each us that ever was or ever will be, in all the times and spaces and universes that ever were or ever will be -- when that body expires, this extraordinary being will preserve the essence of the self that was quite obviously an outcome, however mysteriously, of that very body; and then either condemn that essence to some strange hell, or elevate it to some infinite and endless boredom.

I live on a planet where billions of human beings believe that same thing, or something similar and comparably preposterous.

So, if I can't let that slide, how can I possibly function as a member of this species? And if I can let it slide, well, what could possibly be worse? The only thing I'm not going to let slide is evil, which I won't define here, but I'll tell you this much: It tends to sacrifice human wellbeing and happiness on the altar of abstractions like Faith and Property and Tribe and Virtue.

As for delusions, you keep yours, I'll keep mine, and we'll whistle and go fishing -- on earth, though not in heaven.

up

9 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

There's no such thing as a fully rational human. We all have our idiosyncratic cognitive blind spots, both with respect to our beliefs, and with respect to our behavior. Yesterday, an incomprehensibly "successful" woman with a teenage daughter killed herself. The woman's sister tells us that this woman knew she needed help, but couldn't seek it out, because the publicity would damage her brand. Good fucking fuck me, the woman designed handbags and gladrags. FUCK THE FUCKING BRAND.

That said, my personal opinion is that a meaningful fraction of perfectly decent contributors to this website regularly engage in a particular kind of broken thinking that isn't just irrational -- it's delusional.

And you know what? I mostly just don't give a flying fuck. If someone makes a claim that is trivially disprovable, I will offer the refutation, and leave it at that. Otherwise, I will either ignore manifestations of fallacious opinionation, or state my straightforward opposing opinion and leave it at that.

I live in a nation in which more than half of my fellow citizens, including some who are very dear to me, comically believe that the whole fucking universe was created by a being that was/is somehow both quite a lot like our own broken ridiculous selves, yet capable of bringing into existence, in case you missed it earlier in this sentence, The Whole Fucking Universe, a being "who" takes a very personal, very human interest in each and every puny one of us, who when our physical body expires -- a physical body which is, I'm sorry to disabuse some of you, is the only manifestation of each us that ever was or ever will be, in all the times and spaces and universes that ever were or ever will be -- when that body expires, this extraordinary being will preserve the essence of the self that was quite obviously an outcome, however mysteriously, of that very body; and then either condemn that essence to some strange hell, or elevate it to some infinite and endless boredom.

I live on a planet where billions of human beings believe that same thing, or something similar and comparably preposterous.

So, if I can't let that slide, how can I possibly function as a member of this species? And if I can let it slide, well, what could possibly be worse? The only thing I'm not going to let slide is evil, which I won't define here, but I'll tell you this much: It tends to sacrifice human wellbeing and happiness on the altar of abstractions like Faith and Property and Tribe and Virtue.

As for delusions, you keep yours, I'll keep mine, and we'll whistle and go fishing -- on earth, though not in heaven.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd
I see the validity of your point. Not sure I can do that, though.

There's no such thing as a fully rational human. We all have our idiosyncratic cognitive blind spots, both with respect to our beliefs, and with respect to our behavior. Yesterday, an incomprehensibly "successful" woman with a teenage daughter killed herself. The woman's sister tells us that this woman knew she needed help, but couldn't seek it out, because the publicity would damage her brand. Good fucking fuck me, the woman designed handbags and gladrags. FUCK THE FUCKING BRAND.

That said, my personal opinion is that a meaningful fraction of perfectly decent contributors to this website regularly engage in a particular kind of broken thinking that isn't just irrational -- it's delusional.

And you know what? I mostly just don't give a flying fuck. If someone makes a claim that is trivially disprovable, I will offer the refutation, and leave it at that. Otherwise, I will either ignore manifestations of fallacious opinionation, or state my straightforward opposing opinion and leave it at that.

I live in a nation in which more than half of my fellow citizens, including some who are very dear to me, comically believe that the whole fucking universe was created by a being that was/is somehow both quite a lot like our own broken ridiculous selves, yet capable of bringing into existence, in case you missed it earlier in this sentence, The Whole Fucking Universe, a being "who" takes a very personal, very human interest in each and every puny one of us, who when our physical body expires -- a physical body which is, I'm sorry to disabuse some of you, is the only manifestation of each us that ever was or ever will be, in all the times and spaces and universes that ever were or ever will be -- when that body expires, this extraordinary being will preserve the essence of the self that was quite obviously an outcome, however mysteriously, of that very body; and then either condemn that essence to some strange hell, or elevate it to some infinite and endless boredom.

I live on a planet where billions of human beings believe that same thing, or something similar and comparably preposterous.

So, if I can't let that slide, how can I possibly function as a member of this species? And if I can let it slide, well, what could possibly be worse? The only thing I'm not going to let slide is evil, which I won't define here, but I'll tell you this much: It tends to sacrifice human wellbeing and happiness on the altar of abstractions like Faith and Property and Tribe and Virtue.

As for delusions, you keep yours, I'll keep mine, and we'll whistle and go fishing -- on earth, though not in heaven.

up

3 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q